IanD
2017-02-08 11:26:42 UTC
I've just been watching some video propaganda put out by Nutanix
I have to say it's pretty dam impressive
Looking at how they do their clustering, I was thinking about VMS clustering, especially in relation to how Natanix use erasure encoding instead of RAID, which allows a far more efficient use of disk space and better disk utilization
Then I got to thinking about VMS clusters and while we can have 96 nodes in a cluster, really the maximum number of workable nodes in a cluster that would absolutely guarantee data redundancy from a VMS management perspective is really only 6 nodes, a far cry from 96 (maximum number of disks in a shadow set under 8.4 is 6)
Is 6 nodes really the maximum concrete data redundancy factor in VMS clusters?
Sure, one could replicate SAN's etc but I'm meaning the maximum disk redundancy as seen and managed by VMS
Is there some other combination of disk / cluster members that I am overlooking that would be fully manageable by VMS and would improve on this redundancy?
Since one cannot shadow, a shadow set as such, this to me means that to have 100% data redundancy that is managed fully by VMS, there is little point going beyond a 6 node cluster (each node mounting a shadow set disk member into a clustered virtual shadow set volume)
Is there any point expanding shadowing to go beyond 6 shadow set members or would VMS be better served going down the same path as Nutanix and look at erasure encoding for future disk management and data redundancy? Erasure encoding scales well beyond where raid fears to tread
As VMS grows up and starts to work with larger and larger disk sizes going forward, are concepts like erasure encoding factors under consideration or is the market segment that VMS will be pitched for, not needing this type of data technology and scale?
Looking at Nutanix's offerings, they seem to do a lot of what VMS does with it's cluster server and then some
I wonder how difficult it would be to tease out the VMS cluster manager processes the same way Nutanix does with their CVM processes. VMS might one day be able to deploy it's clustering technology over other non-VMS platforms :-)
Of course, when we see things like huge memory machines then even concepts like Nutanix may be obsoleted but they would be the closest to being able to adapt to such a memory machine that I have seen so far
I have to say it's pretty dam impressive
Looking at how they do their clustering, I was thinking about VMS clustering, especially in relation to how Natanix use erasure encoding instead of RAID, which allows a far more efficient use of disk space and better disk utilization
Then I got to thinking about VMS clusters and while we can have 96 nodes in a cluster, really the maximum number of workable nodes in a cluster that would absolutely guarantee data redundancy from a VMS management perspective is really only 6 nodes, a far cry from 96 (maximum number of disks in a shadow set under 8.4 is 6)
Is 6 nodes really the maximum concrete data redundancy factor in VMS clusters?
Sure, one could replicate SAN's etc but I'm meaning the maximum disk redundancy as seen and managed by VMS
Is there some other combination of disk / cluster members that I am overlooking that would be fully manageable by VMS and would improve on this redundancy?
Since one cannot shadow, a shadow set as such, this to me means that to have 100% data redundancy that is managed fully by VMS, there is little point going beyond a 6 node cluster (each node mounting a shadow set disk member into a clustered virtual shadow set volume)
Is there any point expanding shadowing to go beyond 6 shadow set members or would VMS be better served going down the same path as Nutanix and look at erasure encoding for future disk management and data redundancy? Erasure encoding scales well beyond where raid fears to tread
As VMS grows up and starts to work with larger and larger disk sizes going forward, are concepts like erasure encoding factors under consideration or is the market segment that VMS will be pitched for, not needing this type of data technology and scale?
Looking at Nutanix's offerings, they seem to do a lot of what VMS does with it's cluster server and then some
I wonder how difficult it would be to tease out the VMS cluster manager processes the same way Nutanix does with their CVM processes. VMS might one day be able to deploy it's clustering technology over other non-VMS platforms :-)
Of course, when we see things like huge memory machines then even concepts like Nutanix may be obsoleted but they would be the closest to being able to adapt to such a memory machine that I have seen so far